What a deranged argument. Bretton Woods was not a "reform". Ending Jim Crow was a reform. Unilateral nuclear disarmament would be a reform. The environmentalist movement has won many reforms, including the elimination of DDT. When the imperialist bourgeoisie sits down in New Hampshire or elsewhere to figure out how to better manage its control over global finances, Marxists do not regard this as "reformism". It is simply politics as usual. The New Yorker article actually suggests that it would be in the spirit of Bretton Woods to create a global version of the Federal Reserve Bank. This would be as much of a "reform" as creation of a unified currency in Europe would be.
>
>About the global agenda of bourgeois democratic rights I cannot emphasise
>too much how this is the banner under which progressive global capitalism
>is marching. Individual characters like Blair, Cook, Clinton or this
>Spanish judge are not just individuals, they are attempting to march to the
>same ideological tune. The advantages and disadvantages of this to the
>working people of the world need to be analysed dialectically.
Progressive global capitalism? There is no such thing. It exists only in the mind of reformists like Burford. After 2 world wars, fascism, imperialist slaughter in the third world, environmental ruin, Hiroshima-Nagasaki and the Judeocide, only a knave would use the words "progressive" and "capitalism" in the same sentence.
>
>I am not going to criticise Lou as being completely idiotic for describing
>this as the actions of one "maverick" judge because he does not see the
>pattern I see. I do think he is arrogant and foolish to dismiss a counter
>argument as "completely" idiotic.
Stop making idiotic arguments and I will stop characterizing them as idiotic.
Louis Proyect
(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)